[Reader-list] In blast times, eunuch goes to donate blood, is turned away: some reflections on citizenship, the body, religion and gender

[A Khanna]

Hi everyone,

below is a newsclip forwarded from another list, thought this might be  
of interest to those concerned with the body of the Citizen. first a  
few brief and random reflections...

the story below relates to someone i presume to be a member of the  
Hijra community in delhi. this person, named Sita, went to donate  
blood in light of the recent and unfortunate blasts. heris blood was  
refused. to me this opens up the question of what it means to be a  
'citizen', and what bodies are allowed into that space – whose blood  
is good enough to be part of a city's brave response to a moment of  
trauma? It also opens up questions of the significance of spaces of  
thirdness in frames that are all too polarised, as seems to be the  
case in much talk around 'terrorism'. a couple of years back i was  
carrying out fieldwork in southern Gujarat, on sexuality, gender an  
sexualness. There are two things from this experience i shall share  
here.

Though being careful not to allow my questions to be overdetermined by  
the context of hindu fundamentalism (this being Gujarat, and  
specifically areas where the violence against the muslim community had  
been particularly widespread), this fundamentalism emerged as a  
central theme that it would be a travesty to ignore. I mean this in  
the sense that a Hindu-ness ahs come to be essential to claims to  
legitimacy. For instance, if an NGO does not/did not perform a  
Hindu-ness – by clearly displaying pictures of deities, or a shrine in  
its office, it could well expect to be attacked as a Christian outfit  
and receive threats of violence. But this demand for hinduness is a a  
complicated thing. In my all to brief work with the Murat/Hijra  
community in southern Gujarat (Murat, an interesting idiom of gender -  
which translates simultaneously to face, idol, mask and performance  
and which is an extremely flamboyant queer embodiment. visibly, it is  
similar to Kothi and Hijra embodiments), i was struck by the strong  
flavour of this Hindu-ness in the narratives of self and community.  
While in other parts of the country the practices and beliefs of the  
Hijra community challenge the very notion of discrete 'religions',  
combining elements and practices of hinduism and islam in particular,  
here i was often offered narratives placed squarely within a hindu  
frame. For instance, Gujarat is home to one of the bigger temples of a  
deity, Bahuchara mata, worshipped by hijra communities from different  
parts of south asia. the government of Gujarat, which i am loathe to  
trust, estimates 1.5 million pilgrims a year. this was fact was  
brought to bear on the claim that there is a high respect in Gujarati  
society for gender-queer folk, that people on the streets would often  
fall at the feet of Hijras, that violence against Murats/Hijras was a  
travesty of not some simply rights in a frame of secular citizenship,  
but of a respect and position accorded these bodies within a religious  
cosmology. (this is not to say that there are no Muslim murats/hijras  
in Gujarat, but rather that they are not (any more?) as central to the  
narrative of the collective self-as-represented.) surely there is a  
history to this Hinduness (given the complex connectedness of hijra  
communities in different parts of south asia...), and i don't know  
enough about it.

Given this peculiar hinduness, i was curious, what was happening in  
this community, and in its interactions with the world, when the  
organised violence was being carried out against Muslims a few years  
back? The Murat community is connected with all sorts of people,  
whether in terms of class, religion, or caste, through a thriving  
sexual economy. Murats have lovers and friends who are muslim, and  
hindu. (it is not that love/desire is blind to religion – there are  
widely circulating stereotypes about the sexualness, and sexual  
performance relating to religions and class. Working class Muslim  
males are most often placed at the highest level, as the best lovers,  
most caring and respectful, and are expected to be terrific in the  
sack, but that is an issue for some other time).

In that scary time, i was told, the Murat/Hijra community became  
something of a safe space for people being hounded – lovers and their  
families - hindu and muslim, were afforded protection in our homes, in  
our neighbourhood. We are all people who have been thrown out of our  
own homes, who have been hounded down by this society – how can we  
discriminate? How can we stand back and watch? Our homes are open to  
all, hindu, muslim, christian.

This community, in other words, emerged as a significant space, a  
third space perhaps, where the evocation of religious identity as the  
basis for violent political play was nullified. And significantly,  
this is not an a-religious space either. Maybe this is an instance of  
the solidarity of the despised, the collaborations of the margin. (on  
which note, i loved inder salim's poster stuck on trees at the India  
Social Forum in Delhi:  
http://pics.livejournal.com/indersalim/pic/0000c70r/ ). Or is it  
actually not the margin, but something central, a core of humanness  
that is suffocated as the pseudo-religious  identities of  
fundamentalism crowd their objects, leaving this humanness at the  
margins, visible only in those despised enough to be irrelevant to  
their virulent projects?

But then, when we 'citizens' are called upon to give our blood, our  
body parts, our organs, seemingly we are being asked to become the  
'bare life' that may (re)build the nation. The non-citizen, however,  
cannot be allowed to contaminate that nation. So despised, it is, that  
  it cannot be allowed to become part of that body. A shame?

x

akshay

..................
beginning forwarded message:


In blast times, eunuch goes to donate blood, is turned away
        
http://metronow.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/in-blast-times-eunuch-goes-to-donate-blood-is-turned-away/

Stories of callousness of hospitals is not new. Refusing beds to the  
terminally ill, denying care to the sick, making them wait for hours  
for an appointment…the list is endless.
And now, in blast times, if a recent incident at Ram Manohar Lohia  
Hospital is to be considered a case in point, there is discrimination  
against those who want to help, also.
After the blasts, many people came forward to help and donate blood.  
Among them was Sita—a eunuch. After hearing of the plight of the  
victims of Saturday’s blasts, Sita wanted to help and went to  
RML Hospital where the doctors refused to accept her blood and turned  
her away.
This, apparently, at a time when the hospital would have needed as  
much blood as possible!
For the doctor at the blood bank, the fact that Sita was a eunuch was  
enough to send her on her way. “When I went to donate blood on  
Saturday around 10 pm, Dr Veena Doda, the blood bank incharge, said  
they did not need a eunuch’s blood and turned me away,” Sita said.  
Shockingly, this happened at a time when dozens of injured people had  
been brought to the hospital for treatment.
Harsh Malhotra, secretary general, Delhi Pradesh National Panthers  
Party, who witnessed the incident on Saturday night, said, “It is  
human blood after all and in times of crisis such attitude is not  
acceptable. The doctor misbehaved with Sita just because she is a  
eunuch.”
While confirming that there was a shortage of blood at the hospital,  
Rahul Verma of Uday Foundation—a non-profit organisation for  
congenital defects and rare blood groups—said, “I got phone calls from  
anxious relatives of victims telling me that the hospital was short of  
blood that evening,” he said.
A NACO survey shows that, voluntary donation in Delhi is only 24 per  
cent. “Blood shortages are a regular feature and if hospitals are  
turning away donors then obviously there are no plans to increase  
blood donation.”
Denying any knowledge of the incident, Medical Superintendent, Dr N.K.  
Chaturvedi, said, “At the time of the blast we had 250 units of blood  
of all blood groups. Many voluntary organisations came and donated  
blood but then we redirected the donors to Red Cross as it is  
centralised and all hospitals could get blood from there.” He,  
however, added that there was a blood donation camp at the hospital on  
Sunday and Monday.
But why was Sita refused? Was it because she is a eunuch? “That you  
have to ask Dr Doda as she is the incharge of the blood bank,” said Dr  
Chaturvedi. Efforts to contact Dr Doda, however, failed.
What’s more, even the law has provisions that prevent people like Sita  
from exercising their duty as a citizen.
When asked, Aditya Bandyopadhyay, a gay lawyer, says, “According to  
the Blood Safety Regulation, there is a clause in the form (which the  
donor has to fill) that asks if the donor is male or female. If the  
answer is none, then the doctors can refuse to take blood from such a  
donor.” He adds that so long as Article 377 is alive, such  
discriminatory clauses would remain.
Would you rate this as discrimination? Should eunuchs be given equal rights?




----- End forwarded message -----

- -- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-------------- next part --------------
http://metronow.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/in-blast-times-eunuch-goes-to-donate-blood-is-turned-away/
 
Stories of callousness of hospitals is not new. Refusing beds to the terminally ill, denying care to the sick, making them wait for hours for an appointment…the list is endless.
And now, in blast times, if a recent incident at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital is to be considered a case in point, there is discrimination against those who want to help, also. 
After the blasts, many people came forward to help and donate blood. Among them was Sita—a eunuch. After hearing of the plight of the victims of Saturday’s blasts, Sita wanted to help and went to RML Hospital where the doctors refused to accept her blood and turned her away. 
This, apparently, at a time when the hospital would have needed as much blood as possible!
For the doctor at the blood bank, the fact that Sita was a eunuch was enough to send her on her way. “When I went to donate blood on Saturday around 10 pm, Dr Veena Doda, the blood bank incharge, said they did not need a eunuch’s blood and turned me away,” Sita said. Shockingly, this happened at a time when dozens of injured people had been brought to the hospital for treatment.
Harsh Malhotra, secretary general, Delhi Pradesh National Panthers Party, who witnessed the incident on Saturday night, said, “It is human blood after all and in times of crisis such attitude is not acceptable. The doctor misbehaved with Sita just because she is a eunuch.”
While confirming that there was a shortage of blood at the hospital, Rahul Verma of Uday Foundation—a non-profit organisation for congenital defects and rare blood groups—said, “I got phone calls from anxious relatives of victims telling me that the hospital was short of blood that evening,” he said.
A NACO survey shows that, voluntary donation in Delhi is only 24 per cent. “Blood shortages are a regular feature and if hospitals are turning away donors then obviously there are no plans to increase blood donation.”
Denying any knowledge of the incident, Medical Superintendent, Dr N.K. Chaturvedi, said, “At the time of the blast we had 250 units of blood of all blood groups. Many voluntary organisations came and donated blood but then we redirected the donors to Red Cross as it is centralised and all hospitals could get blood from there.” He, however, added that there was a blood donation camp at the hospital on Sunday and Monday.
But why was Sita refused? Was it because she is a eunuch? “That you have to ask Dr Doda as she is the incharge of the blood bank,” said Dr Chaturvedi. Efforts to contact Dr Doda, however, failed.
What’s more, even the law has provisions that prevent people like Sita from exercising their duty as a citizen.
When asked, Aditya Bandyopadhyay, a gay lawyer, says, “According to the Blood Safety Regulation, there is a clause in the form (which the donor has to fill) that asks if the donor is male or female. If the answer is none, then the doctors can refuse to take blood from such a donor.” He adds that so long as Article 377 is alive, such discriminatory clauses would remain.
Would you rate this as discrimination? Should eunuchs be given equal rights?